PTAB

IPR2014-00439

Iron Dome LLC v. E Watch Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus for Capturing, Converting and Transmitting ...
  • Brief Description: The ’871 patent discloses a handheld, self-contained cellular telephone with an integrated image processing system. The system is designed to capture a visual image, convert it into a digital format, and transmit the digitized image data over a wireless telephone network to a compatible remote receiving station, such as a fax machine, personal computer, or server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Parulski and Reele - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Parulski in view of Reele.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parulski (Patent 6,122,526) and Reele (Patent 5,893,037).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Parulski discloses the core invention of a handheld "combined telephone/camera unit" with a cellular transceiver, satisfying the principal limitations of the independent claims. Parulski’s device allegedly includes a portable housing containing an integrated camera module, a processor, memory, a display, and a keypad user interface for capturing and transmitting digital images to a remote fax machine via a cellular network. Petitioner then contended that Reele, which also discloses an integrated camera-phone system, provides the necessary teachings to arrive at the remaining claimed features. Specifically, Petitioner argued that Reele teaches using the display as a viewfinder to "view and frame the image prior to capture" (a limitation in claims 2, 9, and 12), incorporating a "removable memory module" through its disclosure of PCMIA interface slots (claims 4, 8, 10, and 13), and enabling the viewing of "incoming image data signals" via a video conferencing capability (claims 5, 11, and 14). Reele was also cited to supplement teachings related to the digital processing and transmission of both audio and image data signals.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be strongly motivated to combine the teachings of the references. The primary motivation was that Parulski explicitly cites Reele on its face page as relevant background art, directly guiding a POSITA to consider its disclosures. Additionally, both patents are directed to solving the same technical problem of integrating camera and cellular phone functionalities, making it a matter of routine design to incorporate features from one known system (Reele) into a similar system (Parulski) to enhance its functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. The proposed modifications involved integrating well-understood and commercially available components and functionalities, such as viewfinder displays, removable memory card slots, and video conferencing features, into a conventional camera-phone architecture. The predictable nature of these electrical and software integrations would ensure a successful outcome.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that several claim terms, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, were essential for mapping the prior art to the claims.
  • "image capture device": Argued to encompass at least a digital camera or its core electronic components. This construction was based on the specification’s description of a "standard analog or digital camera device" and allowed Parulski's "camera module" to meet this limitation.
  • "remote receiving station": Contended to include devices such as fax machines, personal computers, and network servers. This interpretation was based on explicit examples in the ’871 patent’s specification and was critical for allowing Parulski’s teaching of transmitting images to a fax machine to satisfy the claim element.
  • "alphanumeric input keys": Proposed to include, at a minimum, standard telephone keypads as depicted in the patent’s figures. This construction enabled the mapping of the telephone keypad disclosed in both Parulski and Reele to this limitation.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Challenge to Rule 131 "Swear-Behind" Affidavit: A central contention of the petition was the legal insufficiency of an affidavit filed during the original prosecution of the ’871 patent. The patent applicant submitted the affidavit to antedate prior art by asserting an invention date of March 18, 1993, which was nearly five years before the application's earliest effective filing date of January 12, 1998. Petitioner argued that this antedating attempt lacked sufficient evidentiary support to establish that the inventor had "full possession of the invention as now claimed" at such an early date. Petitioner further asserted that the significant delay of over four years between the alleged conception and the development of a first prototype in mid-1997 demonstrated a lack of diligent reduction to practice. This challenge was critical to the invalidity case, as successfully refuting the 1993 priority date would confirm that Parulski (1995 prior art date) and Reele (1994 prior art date) qualify as prior art against the challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 7,365,871 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.